To get informed, see article: “Wired that way: genes do shape our behaviours but it’s complicated” by neurogeneticist, Kevin Mitchell on aeon.co (I recommend reading this above my opining below).
For my Facebook word-vomit prefacing the dissemination of above article:
The complexity of genes and our psychology. This article clearly outlines the essential complexity of genetic influence on our brains and subsequent psychology. The complexity and current unknowns of this relationship I intuitively understand, but don’t always have the depth of expertise, knowledge or words to counter the over-simplifications people so often perceive.
Oversimplifications that sometimes seem to perpetuate a belief in the ‘stuck-ness’ and inevitability of people (something I have an inherent aversion to and doesn’t seem to match the change that can happen in people). Understandably. Complexity is paradoxically uncomfortable for our human minds, despite acceptance of its existence being one of the things that could help us all be more comfortable with our humanity 🤔
The genetic influence on the whole of our bodies and selves cannot be reduced to a single gene, a single variable. The nature and nurture, and nature via nurture relationships being investigated cannot not fit neatly into our conventional thinking that defaults to definitive, simple conclusions.
Sorry guys- the jury’s out and perhaps it will always be, in favour of perpetual curiosity and investigation to just better understand what we can of these beautiful, kaleidoscopically complicated relationships of the biological human being.
Scratch that metaphor of a ‘jury’. A jury is a human-made concept and human-made system for discerning ‘truth’. Both of which nature is not subject to, and science doesn’t embody as much as our popular concept would have us perceive. As alluded to in this article, nature persists in its workings and inscrutability. It remains unaffected by the emotionally driven, ego-serving and anthropocentric thinking that has us dedicated to misrepresentative conclusions and simplicity.
In the meantime, is the belief that we are wholly bound by genetically pre-determined psychological traits a useful belief to operate by, and never question? Especially in the absence of concrete evidence? The answer for me personally is always to suspend belief in in deference to what I actually cannot know yet.
Link to the article again: